Energy bill is better fit for state, economy
I respond to last Sunday's op-ed column “Energy-standards bill will come back to bite Kasich” by Thomas Suddes. He said Gov. John Kasich would suffer for Senate Bill 310, the bill that would freeze the renewableenergy and energy-efficiency mandates for two years.
Not if the governor explains that Ohio's 12.5 percent renewable-energy mandate, and the 12.5 percent advanced-energy mandate that could be added to it if certain conditions are not met by 2025, could lock Ohio into a disaster.
Renewable energy is not some magical thing, it’s a difficult thing, and the type of generation most likely to fulfill the mandate, wind, has fundamental drawbacks.
The largest one is that in the absence of energy storage, which no one is proposing to build, there is no such thing as wind generation by itself.
There is only wind generation combined with coal, or wind generation combined with natural gas, where in either case the fossil side has to provide the majority of the electricity.
This simple fact has huge implications. It means that any wind mandate is in practice a much-larger fossil-fuel mandate and an even-larger anti-nuclear mandate, equal to the sum of the other two. Therefore, a 25 percent renewable-energy mandate could require nearly all remaining generation to come from coal or natural gas.
That could result in a disaster if coal is steadily shut down and the price of natural gas ever goes up.
Why should Ohio close off its options? Why shouldn’t we retain the flexibility to build the amount of natural gas that makes sense, the amount of wind that makes sense, and the amount of nuclear that makes sense? If the price of natural gas ever skyrockets, the flexibility to switch to nuclear energy could be critical. And if reducing carbon-dioxide emissions is important, why wouldn’t it make more sense to eliminate them with nuclear power than lock them in through a combination of coal and wind or natural gas and wind?
Finally, the advertised price of wind generation has been artificially suppressed by the (recently expired) federal wind-production tax credit. If Congress allows it to remain expired (or tapers it to zero), wind’s cost to Ohio ratepayers will increase by a big number.
Should we lock ourselves into paying that? TOM STACY
Zanesfield